SCOTUS: DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[jbombelli]

Well, Adams lasted a long time. I wonder which banned member he was.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, what happens to federal benefits for a gay married couple that then moves to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage?

 

[Doug]

I guess if they got married in a state that allows it, the Feds would consider them married.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is the covenant between you and your wife the State's business?

The state, not the federal government.

Until the day comes that the state separates itself from the marriage business it will be their business to be involved in it.

This cannot happen.

The state will always be involved. Even assuming arguendo that anyone could marry anyone or anything else, then the state would be involved enforcing these contractual rights and forcing others to recognize this new contract.

People will always turn to government.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Proposition 8 ruling: Can someone explain for me how the Hell a constitutional amendment can be ruled unconstitutional?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Proposition 8 ruling: Can someone explain for me how the Hell a constitutional amendment can be ruled unconstitutional?

Sure. State constitutions can recognize extra rights, but can't restrict rights, over the federal Constitution. If Indiana passed a constitutional amendment that completely forbid the ownership of firearms, you could challenge it in Federal court as a violation of your Federal 2nd amendment rights.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sure. State constitutions can recognize extra rights, but can't restrict rights, over the federal Constitution. If Indiana passed a constitutional amendment that completely forbid the ownership of firearms, you could challenge it in Federal court as a violation of your Federal 2nd amendment rights.

OK, but then one wonders why SCOTUS essentially ducked behind the 10th when the 'right' in question is not enumerated or addressed in any way while simultaneously permitting gross violations of enumerated rights.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The Prop 8 decision was kind of a punt, but also kind of a knocking over the game board and spilling the game pieces all over the floor because the players, in this case the 9th Federal Circuit Court and a cadre of private, pro-Prop 8 individuals and organizations, were no longer playing by the game's proper rules, namely, that in order to file an appeal or to launch a suit, you have to have standing. The state courts, and not the federal courts, had already declared Prop 8, as it was instituted, was unconstitutional, not under the federal Constitution, but under the Constitution of the state of California. Thereupon, the state of California declined to appeal that finding in its own courts to a higher state court, perhaps the state Supreme Court. The problem, as the SCOTUS today found, came when the 9th Circuit allowed a party other than the duly elected representatives in the state of California to become state actors in their stead in seeking to appeal that California state court decision to the federal courts. It was this point to which SCOTUS today reset the game pieces on the board and admonished all concerned to play by the rules. In other words, they returned the controversy over Prop 8 to the point where the state court declared it unconstitutional and the state of California exercised its sovereign power to not appeal that finding. It is for that reason that Prop 8 is now solidly dead and there is no mechanism left in the state of California to inhibit same-sex marriages from being both solemnized and legally recognized. The state of California did that, not SCOTUS. SCOTUS just reminded everyone of the rules of the game.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The Prop 8 decision was kind of a punt, but also kind of a knocking over the game board and spilling the game pieces all over the floor because the players, in this case the 9th Federal Circuit Court and a cadre of private, pro-Prop 8 individuals and organizations, were no longer playing by the game's proper rules, namely, that in order to file an appeal or to launch a suit, you have to have standing. The state courts, and not the federal courts, had already declared Prop 8, as it was instituted, was unconstitutional, not under the federal Constitution, but under the Constitution of the state of California. Thereupon, the state of California declined to appeal that finding in its own courts to a higher state court, perhaps the state Supreme Court. The problem, as the SCOTUS today found, came when the 9th Circuit allowed a party other than the duly elected representatives in the state of California to become state actors in their stead in seeking to appeal that California state court decision to the federal courts. It was this point to which SCOTUS today reset the game pieces on the board and admonished all concerned to play by the rules. In other words, they returned the controversy over Prop 8 to the point where the state court declared it unconstitutional and the state of California exercised its sovereign power to not appeal that finding. It is for that reason that Prop 8 is now solidly dead and there is no mechanism left in the state of California to inhibit same-sex marriages from being both solemnized and legally recognized. The state of California did that, not SCOTUS. SCOTUS just reminded everyone of the rules of the game.

A constitutional amendment does one of two thing: It either makes something previously unconstitutional constitutional or conversely makes something previously constitutional unconstitutional. This court ruling which the court should not have authority to make effectively nullifies the amendment process of the California state constitution.

 

[CathyInBlue]

In this case, the Prop 8 process was being scrutinized, not necessarily its content. The Prop 8 organizers erred in how they got it on the ballot in the first place. The due process of the Constitutional amendment initiative under California law was violated. hence, the content of Prop 8 cannot be considered a part of the California Constitution.

 

[Sfrandolph]

The country has officially become the most screwed up place on the planet. Marrying 12 year olds and polygamy will have to be allowed now. The horse has walked out of the barn cause the door is open. And just how long will it be before some nutcase wants to marry their dog or cat. Guess that should be legal too. Oh, and what about your second cousin. That should not be prohibited either because it would be discriminatory. And the folks in the big city call the folks in the country rednecks. Right.

 

[rambone]

The country has officially become the most screwed up place on the planet. Marrying 12 year olds and polygamy will have to be allowed now. The horse has walked out of the barn cause the door is open. And just how long will it be before some nutcase wants to marry their dog or cat. Guess that should be legal too. Oh, and what about your second cousin. That should not be prohibited either because it would be discriminatory. And the folks in the big city call the folks in the country rednecks. Right.

None of that happens without first being approved in a given state. I wouldn't lose sleep thinking about it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The country has officially become the most screwed up place on the planet. Marrying 12 year olds and polygamy will have to be allowed now. The horse has walked out of the barn cause the door is open. And just how long will it be before some nutcase wants to marry their dog or cat. Guess that should be legal too. Oh, and what about your second cousin. That should not be prohibited either because it would be discriminatory. And the folks in the big city call the folks in the country rednecks. Right.

You can already marry your 1st cousin now if you want, so that hasn't changed.

 

[downzero]

So they punted on Prop 8? Huh. Maybe we can hope some day they'll revisit it.

They didn't "punt" on Prop 8--they took a procedural step that allowed the lower court ruling to stand. Prop 8 is dead.

 

[downzero]

Also because of the language in this ruling I wonder if this is going to give gays legal rights against discrimination at the work place? I'm no law expert but I think so.

Can't "give" people rights. They either have them or they don't. Respecting them is another story.

Someone didn't have standing to do something and a bunch of stuff got vacated. Okay. ?????

Jurisdiction renders a lower court without the power to render any judgment at all. Thus the appeal is vacated--no court ever had the power to hear it.

I think the Supremes rolled back all federal court actions on Prop 8 back to the last known state court action, which was to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional. Not entirely sure of that assessment, however.

This is wrong, too. The case was brought in federal court initially. The initial parties did not appeal and that decision stands.

 

[Trooper]

No "can of worms" at all. They'll simply be treated as all married couples are treated under the law with all the same rights and privileges. If you're married you get to file as married and all laws apply. This is just treating all married couples the same, by the feds and hopefully the states (under the full faith and credit clause).

The problem is that we have government taking over a religious activity, marriage. At best the government can create a partnership with rights to survivability and assumed powers of attorney. In fact that is how the Indiana Code defines marriage, a partnership (just like a business) with rights to survive each other.

Technically the state does not authorize marriage, it creates a special type of partnership.

 

[Trooper]

The state, not the federal government.



This cannot happen.

The state will always be involved. Even assuming arguendo that anyone could marry anyone or anything else, then the state would be involved enforcing these contractual rights and forcing others to recognize this new contract.

People will always turn to government.

When I was studying for my real estate license, they covered the Indiana Code. Basically "marriage" is seen as a special form of partnership that includes inheritance of the surviving partner after death and certain forms of powers of attorney.

In forming a partnership, are their contractual aspects? And why do we use such a simple contract (verbal) for "marriage"? Why not make people go to an attorney and put all of this down in writing, to include powers of attorney, wills and such? Then go in front of a judge to formalize the partnership?

Maybe gay marriage will push us to do the correct thing.

 

[downzero]

Technically the state does not authorize marriage, it creates a special type of partnership.

Which discriminates against single people, but nobody will ever care enough to sue.

 

[jbombelli]

The country has officially become the most screwed up place on the planet. Marrying 12 year olds and polygamy will have to be allowed now. The horse has walked out of the barn cause the door is open. And just how long will it be before some nutcase wants to marry their dog or cat. Guess that should be legal too. Oh, and what about your second cousin. That should not be prohibited either because it would be discriminatory. And the folks in the big city call the folks in the country rednecks. Right.

 

[Arthur Dent]

The problem is that we have government taking over a religious activity, marriage. At best the government can create a partnership with rights to survivability and assumed powers of attorney. In fact that is how the Indiana Code defines marriage, a partnership (just like a business) with rights to survive each other.

Technically the state does not authorize marriage, it creates a special type of partnership.

Marriage is not strictly a religious activity. You can get married by a judge.

The state does indeed authorize marriage. Did you have to get a marriage license before you could get married?